Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and
Trade Promotion Authority
Updated June 29, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45846
Congressional Research Service
SUMMARY
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and
Trade Promotion Authority
Congress plays a key role in shaping U.S. trade policy. While the President has authority to
negotiate with foreign countries, Congress has sole constitutional authority to regulate
international trade. Since 1934, Congress has periodically delegated certain trade agreement
negotiating authorities to the President and has required congressional approval of some trade
agreements through implementing legislation. Since 1979, Congress has passed 17 implementing
measures for FTAs and multilateral trade agreements. Most recently, Congress considered and approved the United States-
Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) (P.L. 116-113).
Congress also periodically considers legislation to grant Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) to the President for limited time
periods. Through TPA legislation, Congress delegates certain trade agreement negotiating authorities to the President; defines
specific trade negotiation objectives; and sets consultation requirements. TPA legislation also outlines the terms,
requirements, and procedures for FTA implementing legislation to receive expedited consideration in Congress. All but one
of the 17 trade agreements approved by Congress since 1979 were considered in Congress under TPA.
Since 1979, Congress has passed six measures extending TPA for limited time periods. The most recent TPA was passed in
2015; this authority expired on July 1, 2021, potentially complicating the Administration’s future trade negotiations. As with
many international trade issues, TPA has been politically contentious over time, resulting in vigorous debate and three
notable lapses in authority, including the current lapse.
Congress also has a specific role in determining U.S. membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Congress first
approved U.S. membership in the international organization in 1994, by passing the implementing legislation for the WTO
Uruguay Round Agreements. The implementing legislation also established a procedure whereby Congress can withdraw the
United States from the WTO through a joint resolution. In the 116
th
Congress, two resolutions were introduced to withdraw
U.S. membership from the WTO; neither were brought up for a vote.
The following report and tables compile the final congressional votes on FTAs, TPA, and U.S membership to the WTO.
R45846
June 29, 2023
Keigh E. Hammond
Senior Research Librarian
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Congress and Free Trade Agreements ............................................................................................. 1
Tables
Table 1. U.S. Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority: A Timeline ....................... 3
Table 2. Major Votes on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Implementing Legislation ......................... 5
Table 3. U.S. Membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO): Major Legislation
and Votes ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 4. Major Votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Provisions .......................................... 9
Appendixes
Appendix. Selected CRS Reports and Resources .......................................................................... 13
Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 14
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 1
Congress and Free Trade Agreements
This report compiles the final congressional votes on free trade agreements (FTAs), trade
promotion authority (TPA), and U.S membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
In the past 30 years, the United States has pursued bilateral, regional, and multilateral trade
agreements in an attempt to liberalize markets and reduce trade and investment barriers. Congress
has played a central role in shaping this trade policy. Congress—through debate and legislation—
defines trade negotiation priorities and approves FTAs. Congress also helps oversee agreements’
implementation and enforcement.
While the President has the authority to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, Congress has
sole constitutional authority to regulate international trade.
1
Since 1934, Congress has
periodically delegated some authority to negotiate trade agreements to the President. In the Trade
Act of 1974, Congress outlined many of the congressional and executive roles regarding trade
agreements; Congress delegated negotiation authority to the President, but required congressional
approval (through implementation legislation) of FTAs. Congress also created a process to allow
for expedited consideration of trade agreement implementing legislation, provided that the
President observe certain statutory requirements.
2
This expedient consideration is known as TPA
or, formerly, “fast-track” consideration.
3
Free Trade Agreements: Bilateral and Regional
The United States is currently party to 12 bilateral FTAs (with Australia, Bahrain, Chile,
Colombia, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore) and to
two regional FTAs (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Dominican
Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)). (For a list and
timeline of FTAs, see Table 1. For a compilation of final congressional votes on FTAs considered
by Congress, see Table 2.) These FTAs are considered comprehensive trade agreements, covering
“substantially all trade” between partners. The United States has also negotiated more limited
agreements that have focused on select bilateral trade and tariff issues; recent examples include
the partial scope agreements with Japan on critical minerals (2023), digital trade (2020), and
limited tariff reductions (2020), as well as the 2020 “phase one” agreement with China. This
report does not cover these limited-scope agreements, as they have not required congressional
approval or changes to U.S. law.
4
1
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations ... ”
and “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.... ”
2
Section 102 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
3
For more on Trade Promotion Authority see CRS In Focus IF10038, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by
Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by Christopher A. Casey and
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, and CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in
Trade Policy, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey.
4
For more on presidential authorities for limited scope trade agreements, see CRS In Focus IF11400, Presidential
Authority to Address Tariff Barriers in Trade Agreements, by Christopher A. Casey and Brandon J. Murrill. For more
on the recent, limited scope agreements, see: CRS Insight IN12152, U.S.-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement, by Kyla
H. Kitamura, CRS In Focus IF11120, U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement Negotiations, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, and
CRS In Focus IF12125, U.S.-China Phase One Trade Deal, by Karen M. Sutter.
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 2
Multilateral Trade Agreements and the World Trade Organization
In addition to bilateral and regional FTAs, the United States is also party to multilateral trade
agreements that outline membership in the WTO, a 164-member international organization. The
WTO was created in 1995 to oversee and administer multilateral trade rules, serve as a forum for
trade liberalization negotiations, and resolve trade disputes.
5
When Congress approved the WTO
Uruguay Round Agreements, it included a set of procedures to allow Congress to reconsider U.S.
membership in the WTO by passing a joint resolution calling for withdrawal from the
organization.
6
Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal from the WTO. Resolutions
were introduced in the House during the 106
th
and 109
th
Congress; neither passed. In the 116
th
Congress, two resolutions to withdraw from the WTO were introduced (H.J.Res. 89 and S.J.Res.
71); neither were brought up for a vote. See Table 3 for a compilation of major legislation and
votes concerning U.S. membership to the WTO.
Trade Promotion Authority
Implementing legislation for all U.S. FTAs, except the agreement with Jordan, was considered in
Congress under Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is the process by which Congress enables
FTA legislation to be considered under expedited legislative procedures, provided the President
observes certain statutory obligations. Because TPA is extended only for limited periods,
Congress periodically considers legislation to extend it and to outline future trade negotiation
objectives and consultation requirements. Since 1974, Congress has passed seven measures
extending TPA. Most recently, Congress passed TPA legislation in 2015 (via the Bipartisan
Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, P.L. 114-26); this authority lapsed
on July 1, 2021. TPA, like many issues related to international trade, has been politically
contentious in Congress over time, resulting in vigorous debate and two previous eight-year
lapses in authority.
7
For a list of major votes on TPA, see Table 4.
Congressional Votes on Select Trade Legislation
Congressional consideration of bills can be a complex process, sometimes requiring multiple
votes. For clarity’s sake, this report only provides the final vote for each measure. More complete
bill information can be found on Congress.gov—including roll call votes for all legislation back
to 1993. The bill numbers listed in the following tables link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies
link to the House and Senate roll call votes, for all votes back to 1993.
Table 1 provides a timeline of FTAs including the date the agreement was signed, the date
implementing legislation was enacted, and the date the agreement went into force. The table also
notes the TPA legislation under which the trade agreement was considered in Congress. The table
includes comprehensive FTAs that have entered into force and have required congressional
approval. This table does not include limited-scope agreements that have not required
5
See CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by Cathleen D.
Cimino-Isaacs.
6
Section 125(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465) sets procedures for congressional disapproval
of WTO participation. It specifies that Congress’s approval of the WTO agreement shall cease to be effective “if and
only if” Congress enacts a joint resolution calling for withdrawal. Congress may vote every five years on withdrawal.
7
TPA lapsed for multiple years between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015. For more on TPA, see CRS
Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs,
Christopher A. Casey, and Christopher M. Davis.
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 3
congressional approval, or trade agreements that were signed, but not voted on by Congress, such
as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
8
Table 2 provides major votes on FTAs, including the final House and Senate votes on FTA
implementing legislation.
Table 3 provides major legislation and votes on U.S. membership to the WTO, including
implementing legislation for multilateral agreements and resolutions calling for the United States
to withdraw from the WTO.
Table 4 provides major votes on TPA legislation. It includes the final House and Senate votes on
TPA-related provisions. Votes are grouped by the trade agreement authority granted to the
President.
For a selected list of CRS products on FTAs and TPA, see the Appendix.
Table 1. U.S. Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority: A Timeline
(1985-2021 descending order by entry into force date)
U.S. Free
Trade
Agreement
Implementing
Legislation
Signed by
President
Agreement
Entered into
Force
TPA
a
USMCA
b
1/29/2020
7/1/2020
Bipartisan Congressional Trade
Priorities and Accountability Act
of 2015
Colombia
10/21/2011
5/15/2012
Trade Act of 2002
South Korea
10/21/2011
3/15/2012
Trade Act of 2002
Panama
10/21/2011
10/31/2012
Trade Act of 2002
Peru
12/14/2007
2/1/2009
Trade Act of 2002
Oman
9/26/2006
1/1/2009
Trade Act of 2002
Bahrain
1/11/2006
1/11/2006
Trade Act of 2002
CAFTA-DR
c
8/2/2005
entered into
force by country
on a rolling basis,
2006-2009
d
Trade Act of 2002
Morocco
8/17/2004
1/1/2006
Trade Act of 2002
Australia
8/3/2004
1/1/2005
Trade Act of 2002
Chile
9/3/2003
1/1/2004
Trade Act of 2002
Singapore
9/3/2003
1/1/2004
Trade Act of 2002
Jordan
9/28/2001
12/17/2001
Not considered under TPA
NAFTA
e
12/8/1993
1/1/1994
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988
8
For more information on recent limited-scope agreements see footnote 4. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a
proposed FTA, signed by the United States and 11 other Asia-Pacific countries on Feb. 4, 2016. In Jan. 2017, the
United States notified the other TPP signatories that it would not ratify the agreement, effectively ending TPP’s
potential entry into force as written. The remaining TPP signatories made limited modifications to TPP after the U.S.
withdrawal and signed a new agreement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(CPTPP).
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 4
U.S. Free
Trade
Agreement
Implementing
Legislation
Signed by
President
Agreement
Entered into
Force
TPA
a
Canada
f
9/28/1988
1/1/1989
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
Israel
6/11/1985
8/19/1985
Trade and Tariff Act of 1984
Source: Compiled from the U.S. Trade Representative’s website, Congress.gov, Treaties in Force,
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, and CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of
Congress in Trade Policy, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey .
Notes: Also see CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements Timeline, by
Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs.
a. Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) is the legislation that grants the President authority to negotiate trade
agreements for which implementing legislation may receive expedited treatment in Congress.
b. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement (USMCA) superseded NAFTA.
c. CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA) includes Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic.
d. CAFTA-DR entered into force on a rolling basis as the President certified each country’s compliance with
the agreement: El Salvador (March 1, 2006); Honduras and Nicaragua (April 1, 2006); Guatemala (July 1,
2006); the Dominican Republic (March 1, 2007); and Costa Rica (January 1, 2009).
e. NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) included Mexico and Canada, and was superseded by
USMCA.
f. The U.S.-Canada FTA was superseded by NAFTA.
CRS-5
Table 2. Major Votes on Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Implementing Legislation
(Agreements listed by date FTA went into force (see Table 1.))
Congress
(Year)
U.S. FTA
Bill
Description of Bill
Final Votes
House
Senate
116
th
(2020)
USMCA
a
H.R. 5430
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 116-113.
385-41 (Passed)
12/19/2019
89-10 (Passed) 01/16/2020
112
th
(2011)
Colombia
H.R. 3078
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-42.
262-167 (Passed)
10/12/2011
66-33 (Passed)
10/12/2011
110
th
(2008)
H.Res. 1092
Resolution to suspend TPA consideration of Colombia FTA
in the 110
th
Congress. (The Administration did not resubmit
the Colombia FTA to Congress until the 112
th
Congress.)
224-195 (Passed)
04/10/2008
n/a
112
th
(2011)
South
Korea
H.R. 3080
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-41.
278-151 (Passed)
10/12/2011
83-15 (Passed)
10/12/2011
112
th
(2011)
Panama
H.R. 3079
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 112-43.
300-129 (Passed)
10/12/2011
77-22 (Passed)
10/12/2011
110
th
(2007)
Peru
H.R. 3688
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 110-138.
285-132 (Passed)
11/08/2007
77-18 (Passed)
12/04/2007
109
th
(2006)
Oman
H.R. 5684
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-283.
221-205 (Passed)
07/20/2006
62-32 (Passed)
09/19/2006
109
th
(2006)
S. 3569
FTA implementation act.
—
60-34 (Passed)
06/29/2006
109
th
(2006)
Bahrain
H.R. 4340
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-169.
327-95 (Passed)
12/07/2005
By Unanimous Consent.
12/13/2005
109
th
(2005)
CAFTA-
DR
b
H.R. 3045
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 109-53.
217-215 (Passed)
07/28/2005
55-45 (Passed)
07/28/2005
109
th
(2005)
S. 1307
FTA implementation act.
—
54-45 (Passed)
06/30/2005
CRS-6
Congress
(Year)
U.S. FTA
Bill
Description of Bill
Final Votes
House
Senate
108
th
(2004)
Morocco
H.R. 4842
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-302.
323-99 (Passed)
07/22/2004
By Unanimous Consent
07/22/2004
108
th
(2004)
S. 2677
FTA implementation act.
—
85-13 (Passed)
07/21/2004
108
th
(2004)
Australia
H.R. 4759
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-286.
314-109 (Passed)
07/14/2004
80-16 (Passed)
07/15/2004
108
th
(2004)
Chile
H.R. 2738
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-77.
270-156 (Passed)
07/24/2003
65-32 (Passed)
07/31/2003
108
th
(2003)
S.Res. 211
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs and immigration.
n/a
By Unanimous Consent
07/31/2003
108
th
(2003)
Singapore
H.R. 2739
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 108-78.
272-155 (Passed)
07/24/2003
66-32 (Passed)
07/31/2003
108
th
(2003)
S.Res. 211
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
provisions in the Chile and Singapore FTAs on trade
agreements and immigration.
n/a
By Unanimous Consent
07/31/2003
107
th
(2001)
Jordan
H.R. 2603
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 107-43.
Voice vote (Agreed)
07/31/2001
Voice vote (Agreed)
09/24/2001
103
rd
(1993)
NAFTA
c
H.R. 3450
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 103-182.
234-200 (Passed)
11/17/1993
61-38 (Passed)
11/20/1993
100
th
(1988)
Canada
d
H.R. 5090
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 100-449.
366-40 (Passed)
08/09/1988
83-9 (Passed)
09/19/1988
104
th
(1996)
Israel
H.R. 3074
Amendments to the Israel FTA, enacted, P.L. 104-234.
Voice vote (Agreed)
04/16/1996
By Unanimous Consent
09/27/1996
CRS-7
Congress
(Year)
U.S. FTA
Bill
Description of Bill
Final Votes
House
Senate
99
th
(1985)
H.R. 2268
FTA implementation act; enacted, P.L. 99-47.
422-0 (Passed) 05/07/1985
Voice Vote (Agreed)
05/23/1985
Source: Compiled from Congress.gov and CQ Almanac.
Notes: TPA=Trade Promotion Authority. For more detailed bill information, the bill numbers above link to Congress.gov, and the vote tallies link to the House and
Senate roll call votes, where available. In a few examples (Oman, CAFTA-DR, Morocco), the Senate passed an implementing bill before the House version. The Senate
later considered and passed the House version of the bill, as revenue-generating bills must originate in the House. The Senate bills that received a vote are included in
the above table.
a. USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, superseded NAFTA.
b. CAFTA-DR is the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA, and includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the
Dominican Republic.
c. NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, included Mexico and Canada and was superseded by USMCA.
d. U.S.-Canada FTA was effectively superseded by NAFTA.
CRS-8
Table 3. U.S. Membership to the World Trade Organization (WTO): Major Legislation and Votes
103
rd
-117
th
Congress (1994-2021)
Congress
P.L./Bill
Type
Description of Bill
Final Votes
House
Senate
103
rd
P.L. 103-465
(H.R. 5110)
Implementation act
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Implementation
act for WTO agreements).
288-146 (Passed)
11/29/1994
76-24 (Passed)
12/01/1994
116
th
S.J.Res. 71
Proposed Withdrawal from
WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from
the Agreement establishing the WTO.
—
[no votes taken]
116
th
H.J.Res. 89
Proposed Withdrawal from
WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from
the Agreement establishing the WTO.
[no votes taken]
—
109
th
H.J.Res. 27
Proposed Withdrawal from
WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from
the Agreement establishing the WTO.
86-338 (Failed)
06/09/2005
—
109
th
H.Res. 304
Consideration of Proposed
Withdrawal from WTO
Providing for consideration of the joint resolution
(H.J.Res. 27) withdrawing the approval of the United
States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
Voice vote (Passed)
06/08/2005
n/a
106
th
H.J.Res. 90
Proposed Withdrawal from
WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from
the Agreement establishing the WTO.
56-363 (Failed)
06/21/2000
—
106
th
H.Res. 528
Consideration of Proposed
Withdrawal from WTO
Providing for consideration of the joint resolution
(H.J.Res. 90) withdrawing the approval of the United
States from the Agreement establishing the WTO.
343-61(Passed)
06/21/2000
n/a
106
th
H.J.Res. 89
Proposed Withdrawal from
WTO
Withdrawing the approval of the United States from
the Agreement establishing the WTO.
[no votes taken]
—
Source: Compiled from Congress.gov.
Notes: The Uruguay Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) included a series of multilateral agreements that established the WTO and outlined trade rules
and membership to the international organization. The President signed the Uruguay Round Agreements on April 15, 1994. Congress considered implementation
legislation for the agreements under the TPA provisions in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. The implementation act was signed into law on
December 8, 1994, and the Uruguay Round Agreements went into force on January 1, 1995.
Section 125(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (P.L. 103-465) sets procedures for congressional disapproval of WTO participation. It specifies that Congress’s
approval of the WTO agreements shall cease to be effective “if and only if” Congress enacts a joint resolution calling for withdrawal. Congress may vote every five years
on withdrawal.
CRS-9
Table 4. Major Votes on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Provisions
(Final votes on TPA provisions (1974-2021), legislation listed by date of vote)
Congress
Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions
Notes
House Vote
Senate Vote
Votes related to the 2015 TPA grant
114
th
H.R. 2146
Bipartisan
Congressional Trade
Priorities and
Accountability Act of
2015
218-208, (Passed) 6/18/2015
60-38, (Passed) 6/24/2015
Enacted, P.L. 114-26, 06/29/2015. Extends
TPA to include the Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations, USMCA, and
other prospective FTAs. TPA provisions
expired July 1, 2021.
114
th
H.R. 1314
Bipartisan Budget Act of
2015
Measure considered under
“division of the question.”
Measure failed because while
Title 1 (TPA) passed, Title II
failed.
Title 1 vote (on TPA):
219-211, 6/12/2015;
Title II vote (on other issues):
126-302, 6/12/2015
a
Vote concerning TPA: 62-37,
(Passed) 5/22/2015
b
The TPA provisions in H.R. 1314 passed in
the Senate, but failed in the House. An
amendment identical to the Senate version
of H.R. 1314 was then inserted into an
unrelated bill, H.R. 2146 (see above).
Votes related to the 2002 TPA grant
110
th
H.Res. 1092
Resolution to remove TPA
consideration from the
U.S.-Colombia FTA bill
(H.R. 5724) in the 110th
Congress
224-195, (Agreed)
04/10/2008
n/a
This measure removed TPA consideration
(granted through the TPA provisions in
the Trade Act of 2002) from the U.S.-
Colombia FTA (H.R. 5724) in the 110th
Congress. No further legislative action
occurred in the 110th Congress on H.R.
5724. The U.S.-Colombia FTA was not
resubmitted to Congress until the 112th
Congress.
107
th
H.R. 3009
The Trade Act of 2002
215-212, (Passed) 7/27/2002
64-34, (Passed)
8/1/2002
Enacted, P.L. 107-210, 8/6/2002. Eleven
FTAs were negotiated and considered in
Congress under the TPA provisions in the
Trade Act of 2002. See Table 1.
CRS-10
Congress
Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions
Notes
House Vote
Senate Vote
107
th
H.Res. 450
H. Res. 450 Relating to
consideration of H.R. 3009
216-215, (Agreed) 6/26/2002
n/a
A rule to expand the scope of H.R. 3009
(the Trade Act of 2002)
107
th
H.R. 3005
Bipartisan Trade Promotion
Authority Act of 2002
215-214, (Passed) 12/6/2001
n/a
TPA Lapse, 1994-2002
105
th
H.R. 2621
Reciprocal Trade
Agreement Authorities Act
of 1997
180-243, (Failed) 9/25/1998
n/a
Measure attempted to renew TPA.
Measure failed. TPA lapsed between 1994
and 2002.
Votes related to the 1988 TPA grant
103
rd
H.R. 1876
To extend fast-track
procedures for Uruguay
Round trade
agreements
295-126, (Passed) 6/22/1993
76-16, (Passed) 6/30/1993
Enacted, P.L. 103-49, 7/2/1993. Amended
the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988 (see below) to extend TPA
for the WTO Uruguay Round agreements.
102
nd
S.Res. 78
Resolution disapproving a
two-year extension of fast-
track procedures under the
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of
1988.
n/a
36-59, (Failed) 5/24/1991
A failed attempt to deny a two-year
extension of the TPA provisions in the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act
of 1988. Also see identical bill H.Res. 101.
102
nd
H.Res. 101
Resolution disapproving the
extension of fast-track
procedures to implement
trade agreements entered
into after May 31, 1991, and
by May 31, 1993.
192-231, (Failed) 5/23/1991
n/a
Also see identical bill S. Res. 78 (above).
102
nd
H.Res. 146
Resolution concerning U.S.
objectives of future trade
agreements
329-85, (Passed) 5/23/1991
n/a
Bill attempted to emphasize that Congress
could suspend fast track consideration if
the Administration did not negotiate
adequate protections for workers,
industries, and the environment.
CRS-11
Congress
Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions
Notes
House Vote
Senate Vote
100
th
H.R. 4848
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of
1988
376-45, (Passed) 7/13/1988
85-11, (Passed) 8/3/1988
Enacted, P.L. 100-418, 8/23/1988. Provided
TPA consideration for NAFTA and the
WTO Uruguay Round Agreements.
100
th
H.R. 3
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of
1987
312-107, (Passed)
04/21/1987;
(Vetoed by the President,
5/24/1988);
Motion to override
Presidential veto: 308-113,
(Passed) 5/24/1988
63-36, (Passed) 4/27/1988;
(Vetoed by the President,
5/24/1988)
Motion to override veto: 61-
37, (Failed) 6/8/1988
Measure failed over presidential veto.
Provisions from H.R.3, concerning TPA,
were reintroduced into H.R. 4848, which
was enacted as P.L. 100-418 (see above).
100
th
S. 1420
Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of
1987
n/a
Senate passed H.R. 3 in lieu
of this measure, by Yea-Nay
Vote of 71-27, 07/21/1987
See related bill H.R. 3, above.
Votes related to the 1984 TPA grant
98
th
H.R. 3398
The Trade and Tariff
Act of 1984
386–1, (Passed) 10/9/1984
96-0, (Passed) 9/20/1984
Enacted, P.L. 98-573, 10/30/1984. Provided
TPA consideration to the Canada and
Israel FTAs.
98
th
H.R. 5377
U.S. Israel Free Trade Area
416-6, (Passed) 10/3/1984
n/a
Text of bill was inserted into H.R.3398,
the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (see
above). Outlined authority and negotiating
priorities for the U.S.-Israel FTA.
Votes related to the 1974 TPA grant
96
th
H.R. 4537
Trade Agreements Act
of 1979
395-7, (Passed) 07/11/1979
90-4, (Passed) 07/23/1979
Enacted, P.L. 96-39, 07/26/1979.
CRS-12
Congress
Bill
Name of Act or
Description
Final Votes on TPA provisions
Notes
House Vote
Senate Vote
Votes related to the 1974 TPA grant
93
rd
H.R. 10710
Trade Act of 1974
323-36, (Passed) 12/20/1974
72-4, (Passed) 12/20/1974
Enacted, P.L. 93-618, 01/03/1975.
Source: Compiled by CRS from Congress.gov.
Notes: Bolded titles were enacted into law. For more detailed bill information, the bill numbers above link to Congress.gov. In addition to the current lapse in TPA,
there were two notable lapses: between 1994 and 2002 and between 2007 and 2015. For more on TPA, see CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA):
Frequently Asked Questions, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Christopher A. Casey, and Christopher M. Davis.
a. The measure was voted on in the House under a procedure known as “division of the question,” which requires separate votes on each component, but approval of
both to pass. Title 1 concerning TPA passed the House; however, Title II, concerning trade adjustment assistance, failed. Thus, the measure failed, under “division of
the question.” (House roll call votes on H.R. 1314: Title I (TPA): Roll no. 362, 6/12/2015; Title II: Roll no. 361, 6/12/2015.)
b. Roll call vote 193, 5/22/2015.
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service 13
Appendix. Selected CRS Reports and Resources
Trade Promotion Authority
CRS Report R43491, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): Frequently Asked Questions, by
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Christopher A. Casey, and Christopher M. Davis
CRS Report RL33743, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the Role of Congress in Trade
Policy, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs and Christopher A. Casey
CRS In Focus IF10038, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen
D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS Infographic IG10001, Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and U.S. Trade Agreements
Timeline, by Christopher A. Casey and Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS In Focus IF11400, Presidential Authority to Address Tariff Barriers in Trade Agreements, by
Christopher A. Casey and Brandon J. Murrill
Free Trade Agreements: Selected Issues
CRS Report R45148, U.S. Trade Policy Primer: Frequently Asked Questions, coordinated by
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs (See section “U.S. Trade Agreements and Negotiations.”)
CRS Report R44044, U.S. Trade with Free Trade Agreement (FTA) Partners, by Andres B.
Schwarzenberg
CRS In Focus IF10046, Worker Rights Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), by Cathleen
D. Cimino-Isaacs and M. Angeles Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10972, Labor Enforcement Issues in U.S. FTAs, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS In Focus IF10166, Environmental Provisions in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), by Richard
K. Lattanzio and Christopher A. Casey
CRS In Focus IF10033, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) and International Trade, by Shayerah
I. Akhtar and Liana Wong
Free Trade Agreements
CRS Report R44981, The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), by M. Angeles
Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10997, U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement, by M. Angeles
Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10047, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), by M. Angeles
Villarreal
CRS In Focus IF10733, U.S.-South Korea (KORUS) FTA and Bilateral Trade Relations, by Liana
Wong and Mark E. Manyin
CRS Report RL34470, The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues, by M.
Angeles Villarreal
CRS Report RS22164, DR-CAFTA: Regional Issues, by Clare Ribando Seelke
Major Votes on Free Trade Agreements and Trade Promotion Authority
Congressional Research Service R45846 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED 14
CRS In Focus IF10394, Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade
Agreement (CAFTA-DR), by M. Angeles Villarreal
Multilateral Trade Agreements
CRS Report R45417, World Trade Organization: Overview and Future Direction, coordinated by
Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
Select Limited Scope Agreements
CRS Insight IN12152, U.S.-Japan Critical Minerals Agreement, by Kyla H. Kitamura
CRS In Focus IF11120, U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement Negotiations, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs
CRS In Focus IF12125, U.S.-China Phase One Trade Deal, by Karen M. Sutter
Author Information
Keigh E. Hammond
Senior Research Librarian
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.